Hmm. I wonder if the boundaries are really that clear-cut.

Romans often regarded Christians as atheists, since they wouldn't acknowledge the recently acquired divine status of the emperor. Ironically, the Roman religion by then was more nationalism than "a faith" in our modern sense.

Atheism, of course, is an opinion about theology: a conclusion resulting from a certain set of data - a trust, if you will - that theology is groundless.

Some of us look at the data and conclude God is; others, that God (or gods) are not. But it has ever seemed to me that placing the two conclusions in entirely different categories, as if one were typical of history as it has always been and the other some...

Hmm. I wonder if the boundaries are really that clear-cut.

Romans often regarded Christians as atheists, since they wouldn't acknowledge the recently acquired divine status of the emperor. Ironically, the Roman religion by then was more nationalism than "a faith" in our modern sense.

Atheism, of course, is an opinion about theology: a conclusion resulting from a certain set of data - a trust, if you will - that theology is groundless.

Some of us look at the data and conclude God is; others, that God (or gods) are not. But it has ever seemed to me that placing the two conclusions in entirely different categories, as if one were typical of history as it has always been and the other something entirely new, seems awfully strained, to me. They seem to me, rather, to simply be conclusions about God that the culture of the moment enabled people to envision. The cultural assumptions changed the location of the conclusions, but I don't think the nature of the argument is, at root, really much altered.

Here's a little better version of the above:
Hi Kauaiguy: I wonder, sometimes, if the boundaries are really that clear-cut.
For instance, Romans often regarded Christians as atheists, since they wouldn't acknowledge the recently acquired divine status of the emperor. Ironically, the Roman religion by then was more nationalism than theism - and that faith is certainly common today, by many names.
Atheism itself, of course, is an opinion about theology: a conclusion resulting from a certain set of data - a trust, if you will - that theology is groundless.
Some of us look at the data and conclude God is; others, that God (or gods) are not. But it has ever seemed to me that placing the...

Here's a little better version of the above:
Hi Kauaiguy: I wonder, sometimes, if the boundaries are really that clear-cut.
For instance, Romans often regarded Christians as atheists, since they wouldn't acknowledge the recently acquired divine status of the emperor. Ironically, the Roman religion by then was more nationalism than theism - and that faith is certainly common today, by many names.
Atheism itself, of course, is an opinion about theology: a conclusion resulting from a certain set of data - a trust, if you will - that theology is groundless.
Some of us look at the data and conclude God is; others, that God (or gods) are not. But it has ever seemed to me that placing the two conclusions in entirely different categories, as if one were typical of history as it has always been and the other something entirely new, seems illusory, perhaps even a twinge grandiose. Another view could be that they are simply conclusions that the culture of the moment enabled people to envision. The cultural assumptions change the location of the conclusions, but I don't think the nature of the argument is, at root, really much altered.